Patterico's Pontifications

5/9/2017

Ted Cruz And Sally Yates Talk

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:36 am



[guest post by Dana]

Here is an exchange between Cruz and Yates yesterday:

Also, here is a look at what Yates said in January and what she said yesterday, and how they differ.

And amusingly, Keith Olbermann, who is already a bit of an angry cliche, also hosts a GQ podcast called “The Resistance”. After Sally Yates’s testimony before the Senate panel yesterday, he referred to her as an “American hero” .

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

33 Responses to “Ted Cruz And Sally Yates Talk”

  1. Good morning. I don’t see where Yates “shut down” Cruz, but it seems to be the prevailing narrative today.

    Dana (023079)

  2. Sally Yates’ “it” factor is magnified by her southern accent. In a world of prissy schoolmarm northeasterners and Californians, she enjoys rent free space in RINO craniums.

    urbanleftbehind (99ff92)

  3. I see no “shutting down, either, Dana.

    felipe (023cc9)

  4. i don’t know why she wants to let a bunch of nasty terrorists and rapists flood into america

    ted should’ve asked her why she loves rape so much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. Because Democrats need to have college rape statistics match their fearmongers. Can’t do that without importing some.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  6. Yates didn’t even know the law that supersedes her agenda.
    She had her talking points that had nothing to do with the law.

    mg (31009b)

  7. Is she anything like The Greatest American Hero in that she had great powers she had no idea how to use? And she flew straight into the ground.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  8. Nobody puts Teddy in the corner.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  9. @1/@3. Try opening your eyes and ears.

    Pffft. Tedtoo was slam-dunked. That ‘basketball ring’ thing just ain’t Canadian Cruz’s game.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  10. @98. A box is more his thing, eh.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  11. @8. ^ Typo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  12. What she actually shut down were the Democrats’ call for a Special Prosecutor…..but follow the meme by all means.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/sally-yates-undercuts-democrats-argument-for-a-special-prosecutor-in-trump-russia-probe-video/

    harkin (65fb70)

  13. I can’t find anything credible about a person who pronounces the word “important” as “impordant” like Yates does.

    Great gosh almighty, y’all.

    Colonel Haiku (cdb06f)

  14. Sounds to me like the US legal code needs to be cleaned up because it is rife with contradictory statements that can be leaned on for partisan stances. Sally Yates “shut Ted down” by quoting a contradicting statute and claiming it came after, therefore is superseded the one Ted read. To me, that seems silly to assume and would be the place for courts to determine which had authority over another…but at that point, the argument is already too technical and the interest of 329 million Americans is lost.

    Dejectedhead (0c7c2f)

  15. She did have the facts or the law so she argued politics.

    narciso (48255b)

  16. This just in:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/comey-clinton-emails-testimony.html?_r=0

    The F.B.I. plans to send a letter to Congress on Tuesday clarifying testimony last week by its director, James B. Comey, about how classified information ended up on the laptop of the disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, according to law enforcement officials.

    In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Comey said that during the F.B.I.’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, officers uncovered evidence that Mrs. Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, had “forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information” to Mr. Weiner, her husband.

    But while some of the emails were forwarded, the F.B.I. plans to tell Congress that it is likely that the vast majority were instead backed up to Mr. Weiner’s laptop.

    I think Huma tried to avoid committing the crime of perjury, so whatever was said, it was probably very carefuly chosen – what to say and who should say it. Comey only said he surmised they were sent t Anthony Weiner to print out, not, I think, that anybody had actually claimed that..

    This morning there already had been a leak to the New York Times (probably based on forensic evidence) contradicting Comey’s testimony:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/sally-yates-james-clapper-russia-hearing.html

    …. Mr. Comey said Ms. Abedin forwarded the messages for Mr. Weiner to print for her to give to Mrs. Clinton.

    Several current and former government officials familiar with the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of delicate information said that while some emails had been forwarded, a vast majority were instead backed up to Mr. Weiner’s computer.

    Which means the New York Times had sources that said that most of the
    emails were not emailed to Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Which sounds my
    hypothesis that Hillary backed things up there, because it was a
    computer nobody would ever look at – they thought.

    Judging from thsi earticle the ratio of emailing to just plain copying
    messages to taht laptop might be 1:6

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  17. As fro what was going on, I offer the following possibilities:

    A) The emails could have been sent there so Hillary Clinton could have a private archive, which she might use later in both legal and illegal ways. This is the most favorable possible interpretation.

    (Actually, also possible is that some or most of them were put there after the State Department asked for her e-mails and she decided to delete her known copies of some of them.)

    B) Hillary Clinton wanted to give inside information to Sidney
    Blumenthal (over the telephone) and needed to have details handy. Now
    you know Sidney Blumenthal used to send her memos that were probably
    foreign propaganda and Hillary Clinton would forward them to Jake
    Sullivan, leaving out Sidney Blumenthal’s name, and ask him to forward
    it around, leaving out some more identifying information, and get back
    reports from U.S. Ambassadors and others as to how credible they found
    it.

    C) Hillary Clinton wanted it for her side job of consulting for
    foreign governments or corporations, who paid for the information by
    donating money to the Clinton Foundation, or paying money for speeches
    or other methods of getting money to Clinton Inc. She would give
    information either in person or via the phone. A lot of her emails say
    that she will telephone someone at such and such a time. She didn’t
    often respond by e-mail.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  18. TRUMP PRAISES FBI DIRECTOR COMEY. 1/22/17

    TRUMP FIRES FBI DIRECTOR COMEY. 5/9/17

    Looks like smoke.
    Smells like borscht.
    Tastes like… strawberries.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  19. @13 Colonel Haiku

    I’m more disappointed when Limbaugh pronounces “erudite” with four syllables.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  20. Ted Cruz and Sally Yates were talking last each other. I’d call this a dar.

    Sally Yates had a sort of counter to Ted Cruz – the only problem is it’s weak argumen – she was skipping a lot of steps.

    Two of her concerns (equal protection and due process) don’t apply and the establishment oif religion doesn’t either really. And this was not really a Muslim ban – this was a politically motivated executive order.

    But suppose there had been an element of oppositioon to a religion here – like banning members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan – would that be ipso facto unconstitutional and forbidden?

    It’s OK to ban active members or former members of the Nazi or Communist party but not a religion based thing that persecutes or kills people?

    Now of course the question really is a question of statutory interpretation. What does Sally Yates mean that she wasn’t basing it on that? She even defended her oppositon on statutory grounds.

    The reall questions are which law trumps the other, and does the president’s proclamation have to be based on fact? And then there is the poossibility that it could be legal but a also severe abuse of discretion, using it in a way and in a situation Congress never intended or foresaw.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  21. Comey is the smallest 6’8″ hack I’ve seen.

    mg (31009b)

  22. Dejectedhead, at 14: while it’s certainly the province of the courts to determine which of two conflicting laws have priority over the other, it’s *also* certainly the job of the Attorney General to have an opinion on that subject, and be able to argue for that opinion from statute and case law.

    For the former acting Attorney General to say “I was acting in accordance with my understanding of the law, which is [x], and which has not been contradicted by the courts” seems like it’s *perfectly reasonable*, unless the understanding of the law propounded is per se ridiculous, which it isn’t in this case.

    She may be reading it incorrectly – but her reading is sufficiently plausible to be defensible unless a court overrules it, and as the acting AG, she was the person who got to make that call.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  23. 14. 22. The statute forbidding any discfrimination in granting visas according to national origin I think aopplies to standard visas. It doesn’t take away the possibility of declaring citizens of certain states enemy alines.

    The whole thing about this executive order is that the people being excluded were NOT being excluded because their entrance was detrimental to the United States, like the statute says, but for political reasons – to appear in some way to be fulfilling a campaign promise, and to appear to be doing more than Predident Obama did to keep out terrorists.

    Besides it was Comey who said he couldn’t vet people who came from certain countries and this was all based on that.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  24. She held her own. So have the dozens of other lawyers who have challenged the EO in court. The arguments are well known and tens of thousands of people could repeat them the way she did. Ted did not score off of her, no “gotcha”, if that is what shut down means. But then, he did not pursue her actual misdeed — insubordination.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. It was a peculiar situation. She was a temporary holdover from a president of a different party.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  26. #22 and #23. I’m sorry, this discussion has gotten too technical and I’ve lost interest.

    Dejectedhead (0c7c2f)

  27. aphrael @22, I cant’ agree with you.

    She may be reading it incorrectly – but her reading is sufficiently plausible to be defensible unless a court overrules it, and as the acting AG, she was the person who got to make that call.

    It’s the court’s decision to make the call.

    She might have an opinion on the matter but as the Acting AG it’s her job to defend the President’s E.O. if under some circumstance the E.O. is lawful. The Office of Legal Counsel said it was. Its not her job to decide not to defend the E.O. if that’s the case. It’s not her job to “make the call” and not to defend the E.O. simply because she might lose in court.

    Yates shifts to the “fundamental issue of religious freedom” @approx. the 3:10. Do you agree with Yates that foreign nationals who have no connection to the United States other than having applied for a visa acquire First Amendment rights?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  28. I’m familiar with the statute that Yates cites as overruling the earlier statute. The statute says no person may be denied a visa on the basis of national origin.

    That statute was law during the Vietnam war. According to her interpretation had a group of North Vietnamese soldiers, out of uniform of course, arrived at a US embassy or consulate in a neutral country that maintained diplomatic relations with both countries and applied for visas, we would have had to issue them visas.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  29. Trump tweeting multiple examples of Schumer criticizing Comey, including a Nov. statement saying he no longer had any confidence in the FBI Director…..

    harkin (65fb70)

  30. aphrael @ #22—–Please read Steve57 @ #27………….her reading of the issue doesn’t matter. As stated by Steve57, the OLC made a finding (that is in her organization and it’s their job), her job based on the “probable constitutionality” as found by the OLC was to defend. Period. Case is closed and there is no excuse. Further, what she said the other day and what she’s said before are different. She prepared herself with retorts, but she is still wrong and deserved, even virtually asked for, to be fired.

    Richbert88 (ddc02c)

  31. C’mon Ted. Trump is handing this to you on a plate.

    This is your chance to redeem yourself and stop being Baby Huey by becoming the next Barry Goldwater.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. Sorry, but Yates doesn’t have a leg to stand on – the standard as I understand it is that if there is any reasonable interpretation of the executive order that is constitutional and legal, then she is bound to enforce it. He wins any “ties”.

    If she believes, contra the white house and their myriad of attorneys, that the order is wrong she has exactly two choices, 1) resign 2) become a whistleblower. What she CANNOT do is tell the people in her department not to enforce a legal (till found otherwise) executive order.

    Why is this the case?

    Well, she has been elected to exactly nothing, and all the power she presumes to have flows solely from her appointment by the president. It is HIS power she is excursing, in his name. She serves at his pleasure. When he gives the order, she is duty bound to enforce it to the best of her ability. Not doing so, and directing other federal employees not to do so, is a grotesque usurpation of the presidents power.

    Tenn (131b65)

  33. 29. You note, of course, that that statement came only in November, but not july.

    Sammy Finkelman (7b1b59)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1016 secs.